every appropriation is dissected according to these titles. It might be thought that one appropriation would naturally be expendable under one title, and so on. To show how far from the truth such a view is, a diagram has been drawn, in which the appropriations for the fiscal year 1917 are listed and connected by lines to the various objects of expenditure, or titles. It was found impracticable to list all the appropriations, on account of the great number of them, so the diagram includes only the most important ones by name, arranged or grouped under each bureau. The number of the remaining ones not named is also stated in each case, and all titles which pertain to these appropriations are indicated by connecting lines.

It is believed that the diagram gives a better idea of the interweaving and complication of the appropriation system than could be described by pages of writing. The fact that every title, or object of expenditure, draws funds from a great number of appropriations is clearly brought out. In other words, although there are such a great number of different sums appropriated, the objects of expenditure are relatively few, and consequently it would seem more reasonable, if separate appropriations for particular purposes are to be made, that at least but one appropriation be allowed for each purpose.

However, this does not really carry us to the root of the matter. The point to be most carefully noted in this connection is that exclusive of sums allowed for specific work, such as items under "public works," the amounts which we carry on our books as appropriations are in fact merely the final approved estimates of the sums which will be needed during the ensuing fiscal year for the various purposes of the naval establishment. When we solidify these estimates into fixed sums, as though we had plans and specifications for definite work ahead, we become involved in many difficulties in the practical carrying on of affairs. Especially is this true under existing conditions where the terms of many of the "appropriations" are vague and incomprehensive, and where so much overlapping exists as to the possible objects of expenditure. Let us examine for a moment the regular course of procedure in expending the sums appropriated for the navy. As we have seen, each bureau, at the beginning of a fiscal year, has at its disposal a group of appropriations to be used in carrying on the work in which such bureau is interested. The money must be so apportioned amongst the various yards, ships etc., that each month the

of the Navy be, and he hereby is, authorized to present a sword of honor to Commodore George Dewey, and to cause to be struck bronze medals commemorating the battle of Manila Bay, and to distribute such medals to the officers and men of the ships of the Asiatic squadron of the United States under command of Commodore George Dewey, on May first, eighteen hundred and ninetyeight."

This medal is officially styled the Congressional medal commemorating the battle of Manila Bay, but is usually referred to as the Manila Bay medal, or more popularly as the Dewey medal. It is made of bronze taken from one of the captured cannon and was modeled by the sculptor, Daniel C. French, and is suspended from a bronze bar by means of a ring on the upper edge of the medal, a ring on the lower edge of the bar and one circular link. A distinctive peculiarity of this medal is that the ribbon, instead of being used to suspend the medal as in all other cases, is attached to the bar only and hangs back of the medal.

The obverse bears an excellent bust likeness of Commodore Dewey in special full dress uniform, the inscription, "The gift of the people of the United States to the officers and men of the Asiatic squadron under the command of Commodore George Dewey," and to the right of the bust a small laurel wreath for victory, an anchor to symbolize the sea, and one star representing the insignia of the rank of commodore. The reverse bears the figure of a seaman, "stripped to the waist," seated upon the chase of a ship's great gun, and with both hands grasping the staff of a flag which is draped across his lap; the figure being surrounded by the inscription, "In memory of the victory of Manila Bay, May 1, 1898." Below the figure is a tablet upon which is stamped the name of the ship upon which the recipient served during the battle, and his name and rank is stamped around the edge of the medal.

The bar from which the medal is suspended is decorated by an American eagle with wings spread above the waves of the sea, with a sword hilt to the right and an olive branch to the left.

The distinctive ribbon for the medal, having a wide yellow stripe through the center with a narrower stripe of blue at each edge, was chosen on account of the fact that "blue and gold" are the navy colors.

EDAL FOR NAVAL ENGAGEMENTS, WEST INDIES, 1898 ing the war with Spain in 1898 the vessels of the U. S. ic fleet, under the command of Rear Admiral William T. on, operating in West Indian waters took part in numerous ments with the Spanish ships and shore batteries, culminatthe battle of Santiago on July 3, which resulted in the estruction of all the ships of the Spanish squadron under nd of Admiral Cervera.

eward the officers and men who participated in these enents a joint resolution of Congress, approved by the Presin March 3, 1901, provided, "That the Secretary of the e, and he hereby is, authorized to cause to be struck bronze commemorative of the naval and other engagements in ters of the West Indies and on the shores of Cuba during r with Spain, and to distribute the same to the officers and the navy and marine corps who participated in any of ngagements deemed by him of sufficient importance to commemoration: Provided, That officers and men of vy or marine corps who rendered specially meritorious , otherwise than in battle, may be rewarded in a like mannd, provided further, That any person who may, under the ons, of this act, be entitled to receive recognition in more he instance shall, instead of a second medal, be presented bronze bar, appropriately inscribed, to be attached to the by which the medal is suspended."

cordance with this resolution of Congress two medals were d: the first to be presented to the officers and men of the d marine corps who participated in the battle of Santiago other naval engagements afloat and in the engagements. at Guantanamo, and the second to be awarded to certain and men for specially meritorious service other than in

irst of those medals, officially styled the Congressional ommemorating the naval engagements in the war with ut popularly known as the Sampson medal, is of bronze, on the obverse the bust of Rear Admiral Sampson with n T. Sampson" to the left and "Commander-in-chief" ight of it, surrounded by the inscription, "U. S. Naval n, West Indies, 1898," and on the reverse a group of

many appropriations? To answer intelligently, let us examine the relations existing between the Navy Department and the Treasury Department and Congress, in regard to these appropriations.

The Treasury Department is charged with the duty of determining whether or not any given voucher covering expenditures of funds by the Navy Department is a proper voucher, and if all legal requirements have been complied with. If found correct in that particular the treasury then proceeds to charge up the voucher to the appropriation indicated on its face, provided of course such appropriation is properly chargeable with such an expenditure. There are thus two distinct questions involved in the auditing of a voucher: First, is it in legal form? Second, is it chargeable to the appropriation named? The treasury is the only authority on the first question, and the Navy Department must conform absolutely to its rulings. As regards the second question, the treasury is necessarily at a loss, for, as has been shown, many appropriations are often chargeable with a given expenditure. The best the treasury can do is to satisfy itself that at least the appropriation inscribed on the voucher is one of those to which such an expenditure may be charged. It therefore rests with the Navy Department to keep the record straight in regard to appropriations, and that is what actually takes place. It is true that there is a large class of vouchers each of which by its nature could be charged to only one appropriation, and the treasury can judge of itself in such a case whether or not the correct appropriation has been inscribed. But as there is also a great number of vouchers for which the treasury has to rely on the navy for the correct appropriation classification, the effect is practically to leave the whole decision in the hands of the navy. Consequently, no advantage in the way of accountability is gained by maintaining the system of many appropriations, considering only the relations existing between the navy and treasury.

As regards the relations between the Navy Department and Congress, we find that Congress approves certain estimates, and that in passing the naval bill these estimates are solidified into separate and distinct appropriations. If emergencies later arise. which require the expenditure of sums greater than those estimated in certain cases, it becomes necessary to obtain deficiency. appropriations from Congress. At the same time other estimates

may be found greater than needed, but no method is available of using overestimates to offset underestimates, except that of shifting charges, to which reference has been made. This method is not to be commended. How much more sensible it would be to definitely recognize that estimates are in fact only estimates, and to enact a naval appropriation bill providing for a total amount made up of the sum of the estimates which have been approved by both Houses of Congress, but not making separate and distinct appropriations in the case of each estimate.

Such a bill should be composed of general estimates and specific estimates. The first would consist of the regular working amounts which have been called the leading appropriations, and also the supplemental amounts for similar purposes; the second would be those sums allowed by Congress for specific projects, such as for public works, and also for amounts allowed for increase of the navy. The second class of estimates would in reality be allotments, the amounts not to be exceeded; while the first class would be expended as nearly as practicable in accordance with the estimates, with proper explanations of all variations. The general estimates, should, however, be made up to cover the objects of expenditure as laid down by the accounting system, accompanied by such text as would be necessary to substantiate the requests; the present indefinite and misleading wording should of course be abandoned.

A good example of what is meant is found in the current appropriation "Pay of the Navy." Here we find a group of separate estimates for a variety of purposes for which the appropriation is to be used, and then the clause, " and the money herein specifically appropriated for Pay of the Navy' shall be disbursed and accounted for in accordance with existing law as 'Pay of the Navy' and for that purpose shall constitute one fund." The fact is here recognized that the various estimates are based on probabilities, but that so long as the total is not exceeded, variations from these estimates are permitted.

Another example, not quite so clear, is found under "Ordnance and Ordnance Stores" of the current act, where we find: "Provided further, That ordnance materials procured under the various ordnance appropriations shall hereafter be available for issue, to meet the general needs of the naval service, under the appropriation from which procured." The provision has the virtual effect of closing all the ordnance appropriations into